Carplane Developers Criticize BiPod…and Burt responds

[Steve Schapiro]

Last week, EAA received an e-mail from John Brown, project manager of Carplane, a German government-sponsored aviation firm developing a roadable light-sport aircraft, regarding an analysis of about Scaled Composites Model 367 BiPod.

John writes, “Our team got together last week to analyze what's currently known about Burt Rutan's BiPod. (Attached are our thoughts.250) It appears there have been 5 BiPod versions within the first week, some of them morphing between conventional 2-surface & advanced 3-surface configurations. Furthermore, neither the measurements nor some of the claimed attributes seem to add up. Perhaps your editors could shed light on some of these questions.”

Brown’s comments about changes in the first week seem to be a reference to the first story EAA ran on the BiPod on July 17 (http://www.eaa.org/news/2011/2011-07-17_RutanBiPod.asp) (which was updated on July 20), and the more complete story that ran in July 28 (http://www.airventure.org/news/2011/110727_bipod.html) issue of AirVenture Today after Burt gave a homebuilders chat about his latest design during AirVenture Oshkosh 2011.

When asked for a comment on Carplane’s analysis, Burt wrote EAA, saying:

“Time does not permit a detailed answer to this PowerPoint. However, for now suffice it to say that he has made many wrong observations based on poor measurements of photos or graphics. The BiPod, in phase one testing has proved itself on the skid pad and at freeway speeds in strong crosswinds to be a very road-worthy vehicle. Gee, he complains that we have too much drag as a car but not enough drag as an airplane!!!

“Note that I am breaking my rule here by paying any attention to his analysis - I usually have a rule to comment only things that are flying, not someone's untested concept. The carplane, like the TF, will likely have very poor airborne performance and efficiency as well as a very noisy, high vibration propeller with blades that move in and out of the wake of forward components (Like my old VariViggen). Like I said at Oshkosh; if you cannot cross the Rocky Mountains to get to Oshkosh, you really do not have a practical airplane.

“I will have no further comment until after we have a race....both in the air and on the ground."
Burt

What are your thoughts?

[steveinindy]

Personally, I look at the "roadable airplane"/"flying car" ideas in much the same way I look at the various permutations of electric aircraft. It's interesting but only as something of a distraction due to the lack of practical applications and the debilitating level of function associated with the modern state of the technology. As I said before, I doubt I'll ever see widespread application of electric aircraft in my lifetime. I don't think I will ever see widespread use of flying cars due to a limited market and human factor aspects.

That said, the last person I want to get into a pissing for distance contest with regarding aircraft design is Burt Rutan.

[Roger]

My thoughts are that the car/plane concept is one of the most impractical concepts in aviation. Not being noted for being practical, I'd like to have one just to be able to wheel it out in the field and go.

However I do see great possibilities for both military and those living in remote areas, but not for flying into or even near urban areas. Using one in urban areas with the traffic and parking would not be worth the risk. I'd also have have some very strong reservations of leaving one in a parking lot for and afternoon and then taking to the air in it without a major inspection before flight.

[spungey]

A plane I can park in my garage, drive to airport, takeoff, and fly is wonderful ... but I'm not going to invest any time or energy in one that holds two people, is ugly, is uncomfortable, flies slow, and gets 12 miles per gallon (of leaded gasoline.) McGinnis is right. First we need to make flying fun and affordable again. The trip to the local airport is a minor inconvenience.

[vasic]

I have no doubt that the German team is quite enthusiastic about their project, and in that enthusiasm, they have lost a bit of perspective. More importantly, they either don't know who is Burt and what he has done for the aviation, or chose to completely disregard that.

Roadable aircraft has been tried several times in the history of aviation, without (practically) any success. There were some recent developments that again showed promise. However, throughout the decades of aviation, since the first attempt at such aircraft, Burt has been pursuing all sorts of aircraft designs, steering well clear of roadable aircraft concept. Until now.

As an idea, roadable airplane has often been a secret dream of very many amateur (and quite a few professional) aviators. Throughout the history, it was clear that it was impractical for myriad of reasons. I'm still quite convinced that those reasons still exist. However, what changed my mind about feasibility of the concept is the fact that Burt (i.e Scaled) has now picked up the concept and started playing with it. As has been said before, whatever Burt decides to make, it will be EXACTLY what he set out to make, fulfilling every single design requirement that he put in front of him. If anyone can make this aircraft feasible, it is Burt.

The German team would do well not to enter into a "pissing contest" with Burt (as SteveInIndy said above).

[Eric Witherspoon]

One that I think has some shot at success is the Maverick. Because rather than creating an airplane hobbled by roadgoing requirements, they made a kick-butt dune buggy and put a soft (read very light, very easy to stow) wing on it. Their design concept is intentionally NOT to cater to someone wanting to "park an airplane in their garage at home and drive it to the airport".

I think the concept of a relatively capable off-road / unimproved road vehicle that can get up in the air in a small area for a short hop either to cross an otherwise uncrossable obstacle or to just get up a little for a look around is much more likely to see some commercial success than anything attempting to run on paved roads with traffic. EXTREMELY impressive was that they DROVE it from Florida to Oshkosh in 2010 (not sure what they did in 2011, but they were there again).

For any of the other "flying cars" out there, the market, at least to me, is completely unclear - millionaire who has everything? The whole land-it-and-drive-under-the-weather idea seems like a dead-end - especially if your "flying car" is LSA - I'm not flying my LSA unless the weather is well into VFR.

[VTOL Qwerty]

The Helodyne website (www.Helodyne.com) on their FAQ page has a different twist on roadable aircraft concerns, getting through the "gate" at the airport, especially if it isn't you local airport, for which you have a pass/permit for (www.Helodyne.com/Helodyne-FAQ.html).

I know at one of our local airports, if you didn't have a security badge and you land after say 6:00 pm, you could be there awhile.

I prefer amphibious VTOL, let's go direct door-to-door, or direct door-to-boat dock.

[teknosmurf]

As an engineer, I think Burt has the right idea regarding his policy to keep his mouth shut and not respond to these kinds of things. The German company is just trying to gain some kind of marketing advantage from a "competitor" and is probably just talking out their rear-end. If I were in Burts shoes, I would not release enough info for another company to make educated guesses about my design until it was ready for market. The fact that the German company is trying to outguess another company (and Burt of all people) shows how desparate they are for attention to their own product.

I think it's time for this other company to put-up or shut-up if they are going to go down this path, and Burt can just sit back and bask in the glory that he has already created.

Just my $0.02

[roadable]

I've been a long time roadable airplane/flying car enthusiast. I am also an 800 hour pilot. A walk-around preflight inspection before flight is paramount to me. The push-of-a-button wing deployment idea drives me crazy though I am aware that navy planes get away with it. One fatal flying car accident occurred at the EAA fly-in I believe in 1974. Leland Bryan drove his roadable on to the Oshkosh runway, unfolded his wings without a preflight inspection, commenced a takeoff and the wing folded killing him. http://roadabletimes.com/roadables-integ_bryan.html

Another concern that comes to mind are government funded companies. The Zoche diesel engine was/is funded by the German government. It still has not become an available product with first runs back in 1995 I think. There was a rumor that motivation was lacking when there was government money coming in. I can't help wonder the same about this company. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20060918114203AAzASLW

I love this subject and I sure hope someone develops a product that minimizes the compromise between road and air travel to make it economically viable. I fully support and encourage anyone who achieves (or even tries to achieve) this goal. I am impressed the way Terrafugia is getting some of the rules changed creating their own catagory. My hat is off to them. http://www.terrafugia.com/ .....but they still have that push-button-wing-deployment thing....

Dan Kreigh

[flybuddy]

One thing worth mentioning is that Scaled's car is the first that actually aims toward reasonably good performance. Cars that go faster on the ground than they can in the air are just gimmicks.

[spungey]

Anyone have any thoughts, criticisms, or words of encouragement around the switchblade? http://www.samsonmotorworks.com/

[rosiejerryrosie]

Anyone have any thoughts, criticisms, or words of encouragement around the switchblade? http://www.samsonmotorworks.com/

Wonder what the wing loading is????

[Nick Whiley]

Burt Rutan is claiming his 40hp, 2-seat motor-glider does 200mph at 12,000ft. Has anyone besides me here ever flown a 40hp motor-glider?? Hmmm. I'm a huge fan of Burt Rutan, but if I'm reading the figures right the concerns raised in John Brown's post have some credibility.

The comparison between the two projects is difficult. I've been following Carplane since 2008 and if you examine the Carplane website you'll see how mature the project is. The Rutan Bi-Pod is a concept vehicle at a much earlier stage of development. How about we try looking at the projects on their own merits, rather than dismissing one because the inventor hasn't flown around the world on a single tank? I guess everyone probably told Burt Rutan he was crazy when he showed the audacity to do the Voyager project. Let's encourage new inventors who let's face it are doing things us regular mortals couldn't do. We live in an exciting era for aviation. :)

[steveinindy]

Let's encourage new inventors who let's face it are doing things us regular mortals couldn't do. We live in an exciting era for aviation

Imagine what they would be capable of achieving if they weren't wasting their time chasing the most persistent lame duck goal in all of aviation.


Burt Rutan is claiming his 40hp, 2-seat motor-glider does 200mph at 12,000ft. Has anyone besides me here ever flown a 40hp motor-glider?? Hmmm. I'm a huge fan of Burt Rutan, but if I'm reading the figures right the concerns raised in John Brown's post have some credibility.



Nothing wrong with setting a goal and if anyone can achieve it, it's Rutan. As far as Carplane....it stands that it might be a pretty decent car but Burt was right: if you can't fly it to Oshkosh because there are mountains in the way, it's not really an effective aerial vehicle.


How about we try looking at the projects on their own merits, rather than dismissing one because the inventor hasn't flown around the world on a single tank?

Honestly, I don't see either project as really having much 'merit' so far as practicality is concerned. This is very much one of those "gee whiz!" sort of "achievements" like the Gossammer Albatross human powered flight across the English Channel or the pursuit of completely electrically powered flight. Neither of those is likely to yield a major shift in the way we fly within the lifetime of any adult on this forum. It doesn't mean that it's not interesting or a good source of amusement, but it certainly isn't groundbreaking or heralding a sea change in aviation.

[Nick Whiley]

Imagine what they would be capable of achieving if they weren't wasting their time chasing the most persistent lame duck goal in all of aviation.

Oh I see. So both Carplane AND Burt Rutan are wasting their time? We can agree to differ on this point.


Nothing wrong with setting a goal and if anyone can achieve it, it's Rutan. As far as Carplane....it stands that it might be a pretty decent car but Burt was right: if you can't fly it to Oshkosh because there are mountains in the way, it's not really an effective aerial vehicle.

I doubt you'd find many who would disagree with Rutan about flying to Oshkosh. From my research I understand Carplane's flight performance characteristics are similar to a Piper Cherokee, using a 130hp power plant. I imagine a fair few Piper Cherokees have flown into Oshkosh over the years! Whilst you're certainly correct when you say there's nothing wrong with setting a goal, a goal is all that Burt Rutan has right now. I agree with you that Burt Rutan has the creative abilities to achieve ambitious goals, and I'll be first in line if he can achieve 200mph at 12,000ft using a 40hp power plant. In the meantime, Carplane's claims of Piper Cherokee performance using a 130hp power plant seem more real to me.


Honestly, I don't see either project as really having much 'merit' so far as practicality is concerned. This is very much one of those "gee whiz!" sort of "achievements" like the Gossammer Albatross human powered flight across the English Channel or the pursuit of completely electrically powered flight. Neither of those is likely to yield a major shift in the way we fly within the lifetime of any adult on this forum. It doesn't mean that it's not interesting or a good source of amusement, but it certainly isn't groundbreaking or heralding a sea change in aviation.

It's fortunate then that neither of these very creative people relies on your approval for motivation lol. Personally I love the idea of owning an aircraft that I can store in my garage at home, and which I can drive home if inclement weather prevents me from flying home after a weekend trip up the coast. If ever I fly over your head I'll remember to dip my wings. ;)

By the way, maybe you'd do better to examine the Carplane website and read the Bi-Pod announcements in more detail before you post again. Your comments reveal a rather obvious lack of knowledge about either project. The truth is out there!! :)

[lmaynard]

Everyone knows that a roadable airplane has extremely limited utility when cost is considered. But anyway, Burt had his prototype at OSH. Where was carplane?

[steveinindy]

Oh I see. So both Carplane AND Burt Rutan are wasting their time? We can agree to differ on this point.



I doubt you'd find many who would disagree with Rutan about flying to Oshkosh. From my research I understand Carplane's flight performance characteristics are similar to a Piper Cherokee, using a 130hp power plant. I imagine a fair few Piper Cherokees have flown into Oshkosh over the years! Whilst you're certainly correct when you say there's nothing wrong with setting a goal, a goal is all that Burt Rutan has right now. I agree with you that Burt Rutan has the creative abilities to achieve ambitious goals, and I'll be first in line if he can achieve 200mph at 12,000ft using a 40hp power plant. In the meantime, Carplane's claims of Piper Cherokee performance using a 130hp power plant seem more real to me.



It's fortunate then that neither of these very creative people relies on your approval for motivation lol. Personally I love the idea of owning an aircraft that I can store in my garage at home, and which I can drive home if inclement weather prevents me from flying home after a weekend trip up the coast. If ever I fly over your head I'll remember to dip my wings. ;)

By the way, maybe you'd do better to examine the Carplane website and read the Bi-Pod announcements in more detail before you post again. Your comments reveal a rather obvious lack of knowledge about either project. The truth is out there!! :)

It's just as LMAYNARD said...it's of very limited utility and I doubt that it will ever become a particularly common design. If the idea excites you, more power to you. I choose to focus on more practical considerations.

[Zack Baughman]

Everyone knows that a roadable airplane has extremely limited utility when cost is considered. But anyway, Burt had his prototype at OSH. Where was carplane?

I'm 99% certain that the Rutan BiPod prototype was NOT at Oshkosh. If someone knows more, please feel free to correct me.

Zack

[Adam Smith]

Zack, I can nudge your 99% to 100%, it was definitely not at Oshkosh.

[vasic]

It's just as LMAYNARD said...it's of very limited utility and I doubt that it will ever become a particularly common design. If the idea excites you, more power to you. I choose to focus on more practical considerations.

I'm not sure if it is because of my limited aviation experience (compared to other members here), but I can't understand how has a road-able airplane "very limited utility"? Primary reason for not flying more often is, for many of us, the hassle of getting to that airport and back. This explains why there is an abundance of real estate advertising for air parks (homes with direct runway access) in aviation magazines. Even for those who have the convenience of having their aircraft very close to their home, there is that hassle of moving around once we land at destination. Conceptually, road-able aircraft (or carplane) has the ultimate utility, as it can get you anywhere and everywhere. And the only reason we don't have it today is because of conflicting regulatory requirements for road and air travel. The regulation will continue to exist (and may only become even more restricting), but if anyone can find even the minuscule area where the two sets overlap, and within that overlap build a roadable aircraft, it is Rutan. If this design does end up successfully meeting requirements for both road and air (regulatory, as well as utilitarian), it is entirely likely that it could become the more popular than C172.

[Nick Whiley]

Conceptually, road-able aircraft (or carplane) has the ultimate utility, as it can get you anywhere and everywhere. And the only reason we don't have it today is because of conflicting regulatory requirements for road and air travel. The regulation will continue to exist (and may only become even more restricting), but if anyone can find even the minuscule area where the two sets overlap, and within that overlap build a roadable aircraft, it is Rutan. If this design does end up successfully meeting requirements for both road and air (regulatory, as well as utilitarian), it is entirely likely that it could become the more popular than C172.

I agree with you. Although, if you have a look at Carplane's design you'll see that it already meets the regulatory requirements for road and air travel. Rutan is extremely capable, but his initial concept vehicle is a long way behind players such as Terrafugia and Carplane right now. As a potential customer I'll be overjoyed if there are multiple options (competition tends to reduce prices!) but right now Carplane is running second only to Terrafugia in terms of maturity of the project and ability to execute.

[rwanttaja]

I'm not sure if it is because of my limited aviation experience (compared to other members here), but I can't understand how has a road-able airplane "very limited utility"? Primary reason for not flying more often is, for many of us, the hassle of getting to that airport and back. This explains why there is an abundance of real estate advertising for air parks (homes with direct runway access) in aviation magazines. Even for those who have the convenience of having their aircraft very close to their home, there is that hassle of moving around once we land at destination. Conceptually, road-able aircraft (or carplane) has the ultimate utility, as it can get you anywhere and everywhere. And the only reason we don't have it today is because of conflicting regulatory requirements for road and air travel. The regulation will continue to exist (and may only become even more restricting), but if anyone can find even the minuscule area where the two sets overlap, and within that overlap build a roadable aircraft, it is Rutan. If this design does end up successfully meeting requirements for both road and air (regulatory, as well as utilitarian), it is entirely likely that it could become the more popular than C172.
Well... as far as utility, lets do a bit of a thought experiment.

Is is truly a car? If it were, you'd use it for commuting. But I've had cases where I've driven to work and a snowstorm hits. I've had to drive home on snowy, slippery roads. Do you *really* want to risk a carplane in such conditions? Are there type-certificated snow tires?

So the carplane is treated like a plane, and stays in the garage except when you want to fly. This means, for most of us, a *car* has to sit outside. A bit of a pain, in many parts of the country.

But OK... let's assume the carplane sits inside the garage until you need to fly someplace. After work on a Friday, you load it up, drive to the airport, unfold the wings, then take off and fly to an airport ~400 miles from home, landing there at about 10 PM.

So, you're at your destination, driving what amounts to a $200,000 car. You're hungry. Are you going to park that nearly-quarter-million dollar carplane unattended in the Denny's parking lot at midnight?

What about the hotel...what kind of security does their parking lot have?

Where *are* you going to be willing to drive that carplane in that unfamiliar city? What if you stop at the grocery story and some lets a shopping cart roll. It creases the wing skin. Sure, you can DRIVE that 400 miles home, but you still need an A&P to fix what a normal car would just shrug off with a paint touch-up stick.

You leave the carplane unattended after dark, and those big, broad wings are going to be VERY tempting to "taggers." And all that fancy electronics, clearly visible through the cockpit windows.

Couple that with the ordinary risks a car suffers (and can handle far better due to thick steel skins and robust construction), and that $200,000 investment is going to be in danger. How much do you think insurance will run?

Your best solution on a trip is to park it somewhere that has some security and the general public doesn't have access to. That kind of place is called an "airport."

That leaves the ability to store the plane at home as the only real advantage of the carplane. But how much is that worth? If you can buy a good used four-seater for $100,000 vs. $200,000 for your carplane. If you keep the plane for ten years, that's $10,000 a year you're paying for the privilege.

That's over twice what my hangar costs me, and I live just seven minutes away. AND can park both my cars in the garage at home.

The $5,000 a year left over would go a LONG way towards a rental car when you fly cross-country to another town.

Aviation has been toying with roadable airplanes nearly since Day 1. There have even been type-certificated examples that have gone into production...but haven't generated enough sales to keep going.

I think it's a fun goal, and certainly fun to watch, but really don't see that much utility in it....

[Roger]

Agreed. This is one of those many things that is counter intuitive. It sounds like a great idea, but in the real world even ignoring the regulatory worlds of airplanes and automobiles airplanes are fragile, vulnerable, and expensive. Cars by nature are build much more solidly and they are heavy. The problems of flying into a strange airport after hours are no different than doing so with an airplane...unless you want to drive it out the gate and then get back in later. We already have to be careful where we fly and when if we want to get out later in the evening and the rules don't always follow for small airports. some have far more restrictive access than others.

But the mixing of a fragile, expensive airplane with lots of expensive and attractive toys inside with normal traffic and parking lots is something I'd want to avoid. So reality reduces the practicality of the air/car roadable airplane to something less than ideal. I have little doubt that some one like Burt could design something that would work well in both worlds, but you can not eliminate having to mix the environments in which they operate. As I said before, I see great promise for military use and isolated civilian use, but I do not see the concept as being practical in general.

[Nick Whiley]

That leaves the ability to store the plane at home as the only real advantage of the carplane. But how much is that worth? If you can buy a good used four-seater for $100,000 vs. $200,000 for your carplane. If you keep the plane for ten years, that's $10,000 a year you're paying for the privilege.

You raise some interesting questions; I guess every owner of a Ferrari sports car faces the same challenges in regard to security (and it undoubtedly diminishes the utility of owning a super car). The numbers I've heard so far for roadable aircraft are between $100,000 to $200,000. $200,000 seems to be the price you'd pay if you were an early adopter, before volumes increase and economies of scale kick in. As I understand things the price would reduce to low $100,000s as volume picks up. In that case the comparison with your used four-seater in a hangar starts to become less of a problem. My vision of the Carplane would be to keep it in my garage when I'm at home, but if I take a trip it may well stay at the airport for the reasons you mentioned. Hangar costs for a couple of days over a weekend are negligible; it's the bulk of the year when your used four-seater is sitting in a hangar at the local airport that would hurt. Clearly Carplane would not be a vehicle to use to go pick up the groceries at the local supermarket, but if you look at the possibilities rather than just the negatives I think you'd come up with some practical uses.

For example I imagine there would be government agencies interested in the concept. The police force and military (as Roger suggests) for example. I'm guessing there would be enough practical applications to get the volume up enough to get the price down to the volume range. That of course will be the acid test. When a paradigm-shifting product hits the market it often takes a while for all the potential uses to emerge. Sometimes such products fizzle, sometimes they take off in ways noone expected. Isn't it great that we have people like Terrafugia, Carplane and Scaled willing to take the risk and to push the boundaries into new markets? We can all watch from the safety of our lounge-rooms, and take advantage if all goes well. :)

[Adam Smith]

Great discussion. What Ron Wanttaja said... I agree with everything... saved me a lot of time composing a post!Burt has said in the past that he gets interested in a project when about 50% of people think it's impossible and about 50% of people think it might be possible. So I can see how he might get interested in a flying car. Despite rock solid argument that it's an impractical concept, the dream simply refuses to go away. Joe Corn's book "The Winged Gospel" is quite good on how the idea of the flying car goes back to Day 1.I agree with the person earlier in the thread who said the Maverick flying powered parachute is a good effort.

[rwanttaja]

...The numbers I've heard so far for roadable aircraft are between $100,000 to $200,000. $200,000 seems to be the price you'd pay if you were an early adopter, before volumes increase and economies of scale kick in. As I understand things the price would reduce to low $100,000s as volume picks up.

So they anticipate that a roadable aircraft can be sold for less than today's typical Special Light Sport Aircraft?

At high volumes, this certainly is possible. The problem is, who do they sell them to? The purchaser has to have a pilot's license, so your market (at least in the near term) is limited to those who those who are already rated, and have shown a marked reluctance to buy new $100K+ aircraft. The US is hard-pressed to sell just 1,000 new production airplanes per year as it is. What kind of production levels are needed to get the price down to less than a quarter-million? If you go to Ford and suggest they build 20,000 cars of a given model per year, they'll just laugh at you.

Again, there have been roadable aircraft on the market before...and the general public didn't rush out to get pilot licenses so they could buy one. What's different now?

The fundamental problem is that the general public does NOT want a "roadable aircraft." It wants a "flying car."

There's a HECK of a lot of difference. A car is easy to operate (turn, go, stop) that doesn't fall off the road if the driver goes too slow or if it gets hit with a gust of wind (well, other than my old VW Beetle, of course :-). To go somewhere, just follow the signs, turning the wheel left and right as needed. The rules to follow are always right in front of you (Speed Limit, Stop, Yield, etc.) If you get lost, just hit the stop pedal and think for a while or step out and ask directions. If you make a minor mistake, you might crease some sheet metal but you probably won't get hurt. If a storm hits, you can usually still get home. If worst comes to worst, you're riding in a steel cage with airbags.

Ask a non-pilot what they'd want in a carplane, and there's generally one major response: "If I get stuck in traffic, I want to just take off and fly over it!" Yet none of the proposed vehicles give the owner that option.

If your carplane doesn't at least APPROACH the above, you aren't going to interest the general public. The only thing the current crop of carplanes offer is "You can give it home and park in your garage." This doesn't do anything for the general public. "Of COURSE I can park it in my garage... where else would I park it?" They're not attuned the problems faced by aircraft owners, so this magical ability to fold the wings just leaves them blank-faced.

If you're limited to just licensed pilots for a market, the volume must isn't there. If you want to sell it to the everyday public, you're going to need to develop it to the point where nearly anyone can operate it.

On the late (and unlamented...thanks, Hal) Oshkosh 365 site, I once made a long posting on how I thought we should be integrating modern computers with General Aviation aircraft. It boiled down to the operator flying solely through an autopilot that gave the operator a simple interface (take off... land at X... go higher...turn left...) and completely isolated the driver from aerodynamic controls (or the need to understand them). The autopilot kept the thing from stalling, kept it out of prohibited areas, kept it above legal heights, avoided other traffic, etc.).

You'll need this system if you're going to sell the carplane to the public...plus a VTOL ability.

Good heavens. I just described the Moller Skycar. :rollseyes:

Ok you need simple controls, VTOL, and the ability to leave for work at 6 AM without waking up six city blocks with your eight shrieking Wankel engines. And, of course, one that actually flies....


For example I imagine there would be government agencies interested in the concept. The police force and military (as Roger suggests) for example.

I like to think of myself as a reasonably imaginative guy. My job is inventing new space systems to solve Government problems. I've had two fiction novels published. I've got a third novel (unpublished, sadly) that actually explores the societal impacts of flying cars.

But I can't come up with a good military or police use for carplanes as they are currently proposed. Ones with VTOL capacity, yes, but not the folding-wing types that require takeoff runs.

Let's say our two cop heroes are sitting in the Nearsville precinct house, and a call comes in. Bank robbery in Farburg, twenty miles away! They rush out to their carplane sitting in the station's parking lot, flip on the lights and the sirens, and hit the road. Five minutes later, they're rolling down the runway at Nearsville (the station house was built at the airport for just such a situation). Ten minutes later, they touch down at the Farburg airport. The bank is fifteen minutes away from the airport, so they show up there a half-hour from when the call came in...about the time it would have taken to drive there, unless the streets had total gridlock

A report comes in that the two robbers' getaway car has been spotted a few blocks away. Our heroes race off, and spot the stolen red Porsche. After a long, exciting chase the carplane catches up (after all, it has 454 CI engine and a complete police suspension package) and the bad guys spin out and crash. They haul the perps out of the wreckage, cuff them, lead them back to the police carplane...

...and stand there pondering, because there are four of them, and the carplane only seats two....

Ron Wanttaja

[TMann]

I'm 99% certain that the Rutan BiPod prototype was NOT at Oshkosh. If someone knows more, please feel free to correct me.

Zack

That is correct. The only 'Flying Cars' that were at Oshkosh were the ones that came in via truck. The only one I saw that had actually flown was the Taylor Air Car.

Burt's plane has not flown off the initial 40. As is typical of Burt, his designs either fly in or are not there at all. It would be a compromise of Burt values to truck one of his designs in.

I doubt seriously if Burt is entertaining getting into the flying car biz. I think this is more about raising the bar.

[Biplaneranch]

I think the real world practicality of a useable flying car is under-estimated in some of these posts. I also think the real world practicality of regular (light plane) GA aircraft as transportation is frequently over-estimated. The flying car may be criticized because it only cruises 100 mph whereas my whizbang REAL airplane will cruise 160 mph or 180 mph or whatever. But they fail to note that the cruising speed of even a 200 mph conventional airplane is 0 mph while it’s on the ground waiting for weather to improve.
Many times the 100 mph slowpoke will get to the destination first while it takes to the highway during the bad weather while the regular airplane sits on the ground waiting for weather to improve. Cemeteries from coast to coast have residents that tried to make their airplane practical transportation by circumventing the weather. It’s called “get-home-itis. When I started flying many years ago in a J-3 Cub, the mantra was: “If you’ve got time to spare, then go by air.” Today, fifty years later, that can still be good advice.


Even the AOPA has admitted that if it’s really important to be somewhere by a certain time on a certain day, you should take the airlines or drive. (They put it a little more nicely by saying: “GA should not be the only egg in your transportation basket.”)


One hears how great it is to make a given trip in a 172 in only three or four flying hours whereas it requires eight or nine hours driving in the family buggy. They’re usually talking about flying time versus driving time, not comparing door to door time in the two modes. When you take the car, you load it with the junk you want on the trip (usually two or three times the junk you can take in the 172) and go. With the airplane, you do that and then drive to the airport... and park the car, and load the airplane after unloading the car, and do a pre-flight, and taxi to the ramp and do a runup, and then you take off, conveniently not counting the one or two hours or more, depending on your distance from the airport, that adds to the door to door time. And then of course, do it again in reverse at the destination.


And how much time do you spend planning a three or four hundred mile trip in a car? Yeah, me neither. But when taking the airplane, are you counting the time checking the weather daily starting three or four days before the trip, and getting out the sectionals, drawing the lines, calculating the gas stops, planning the alternates? Time for that varies with our experience and familiarity with the route, but it is real additional time for the airplane, especially if we want a safe trip.


When all the time spent for the trip with the airplane is considered, it usually is not nearly three times quicker in the plane than the car. And if weather intervenes, the car can be quicker.


Of course, if we’re talking practical transportation, then cost should be factored in. Let’s see, acquisition, maintenance and upkeep costs in the family runabout vs. the airplane... holy #@$%#!! And the auto overhead can be reduced by using it on shorter trips to Walmart, etc., no contest there.


From what I have read, we already would have a relatively low cost useable flying car if it were not for that great group of guys that are always there to help us, the FAA. Molt Taylor’s final version of his flying car used a Honda Civic as the core for the car part. He talked with Ford about producing it. They were interested and said if they made it, they would start with a minimum of 20,000 units per year production. (How would that affect the hardware costs?) Then Ford talked to the FAA. The FAA told Ford in no uncertain terms they would not want to see 20,000 new airplanes a year produced as they would be unable to regulate them in the way they regulate airplanes. Ford, not wanting to get in a battle with the federal government, immediately lost all interest in building them.


In conclusion, I would say that a modest useable flying car, in conjunction with much needed de-regulation of private flying, would be the biggest step possible toward making private aviation actually practical as transportation.

[Nick Whiley]

Ron, in general I agree with you. The market for flying cars is largely for already licensed pilots, not the general public. You mention the the US market only purchases 1,000 new production aircraft each year (I don't know the numbers myself so I'll assume yours are correct). The FAA website shows the number of active pilots in the USA at the end of 2009 as 594,285, of which 211,619 are private pilots (http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics/2009/). The vast majority of these pilots hire flying school aircraft when they fly. It would be interesting to better understand the reasons for the reluctance of pilots to own their own aircraft. In my case it's tied to how I use private flight as a means of travel. The car is more convenient as a means of getting to a weekend destination and the hassles I experience in organising a flight include factors such as negotiating a minimum number of flying hours with the aircraft operator (by way of compensation for the plane being "off-line" for the busy weekend days), and other factors that are tied to flying someone else's aircraft. Obviously personal factors such as cost, convenience, safety, etc. are important as well.

Now, I wonder what percentage of licensed pilots would be likely to own their own aircraft if some of these factors were improved? How much would the cost and convenience factors need to shift to change the 1,000 units per year to 2,000, 3,000 or even 4,000 and beyond? With a potential addressable market in the 100,000s, you would'nt need a very large shift in the percentage to double, triple, quadruple the current volumes.

Obviously a car-plane is not going to be used to catch bank robbers in the act, any more than it would be used to do grocery shopping (reference your earlier scenario of a shopper losing control of his/her shopping trolley)! To put this scenario forward as your best shot of imagining how a car-plane might be used by the police, and then shooting the idea down is the way a straw man argument works. If you're a published fiction writer with a well developed imagination I think you can do better than that, Ron! :)

[Frank Giger]

I think they're using only two legs of the tripod of the truly versatile vehicle the on-the-go person with an adventurous, glamorous lifestyle and huge amounts of disposable income demands .

Yes, to be successful the "roadable aircraft" must also be a boat.

Think of all the time and expense saved! Park the plane/car/boat in the garage and save both space and expense of a hangar and a marina spot.

Just imagine the convenience of flying to an airport convenient to your favorite fishing spot, driving to the boat ramp and onto the water. In the whisk of an eye you could be flying over the lake and then pulling in bass through an open window (Ronco pocket fisherman not included) without ever having to leave the luxuriously appointed cockpit/interior/bosun's chair.

I think I'll trademark autoboata'plane before somebody steals my idea.

;)

[rwanttaja]

I think they're using only two legs of the tripod of the truly versatile vehicle the on-the-go person with an adventurous, glamorous lifestyle and huge amounts of disposable income demands .

Yes, to be successful the "roadable aircraft" must also be a boat.

Not just a boat, but a SAILboat. Yeah, that's the ticket. Just think how you'll tick off the greenies when you claim carbon credits for your autoboata'plane.

Darn, that's a mouthful. Let's just call it a, "Gigerplane." 330

Ron Wanttaja

[rwanttaja]

It would be interesting to better understand the reasons for the reluctance of pilots to own their own aircraft.
I think that one's pretty easy, Nick. The top three reasons are:

3. Money
2. Money
1. Money

Owning an airplane truly sets you free to fly whereever and whenever you want, but it comes at a serious cost. One can adjust car ownership to match nearly any financial situation, but there appears to be an irreducible minimum as far as owning an airplane. The ability to bring one's airplane home saves on storage costs, but in a lot of the country, tiedown spots just aren't that expensive.

One has to consider, too, how many pilots actually own garages they can bring an airplane TO. I would not want to park a Gigerplane in an apartment complex's parking lot.

Maintenance is a major cost driver, and the biggest for uncertainty. My car gets by with an oil change every once in a while, but an airplane requires much more attention. Going Experimental helps, but a lot of folks just aren't comfortable with doing their own maintenance. A&P services are actually a bargain (the local Chevy dealer has a higher shop rate than most A&Ps), but the annual inspection mandates that an owner shell out a big chunk of money each year. Just an annual inspection will probably cost $1,000, plus all the things that have to be fixed.

(Yes, I know you can do owner-assisted annuals, and there are other cost-saving methods. But we're talking why the *average* pilot doesn't own, not what an individual owner can do).

Insurance rears its ugly head as well. My Fly Baby insurance is pretty cheap (thanks, EAA!), but I've got only one seat and liability coverage only. Most folks won't want to run "bare" on a $50,000 investment, and that can run your costs up.

Finally, of course, there's fuel costs. Airplanes get horrible seat-miles-per-gallon, and the gallon costs more than the stuff for the car does (again, we're talking average ownership). Going as the crow flies helps, but the Interstate highway system usually is a pretty efficient route. Here in western Washington state, we often end up following the concrete compass anyway, to avoid trying to cut across some rather nasty mountains.

Storage cost is just one leg of some rather steep ownership costs. The question is whether the ability to store a Gigerplane at home is an *enabler* for aircraft ownership. Assume a guy flies 100 hours per year at 8 gallons an hour of $6 avgas. Assume the aircraft maintenance cost (including annuals and a set-aside for an overhaul) is $2,000, and his insurance premium is 5% of the $50,000 aircraft's value per year.

So the airplane will cost the owner roughly $9000 a year. A tiedown at my field is $60 a month, or $720 a year. That's less than 10% of the total cost of ownership. It's hard to justify a carplane at that basis. Sure, nice hangars cost a LOT more than that. But you're going to spend nearly $10,000 a year no matter what your storage approach. You can buy a $60,000 used Cessna 172 and park it outside for $60 a month, or you can buy a $150,000 carplane and save that sixty bucks.

And, again, CERTAINLY there are things an individual owner can do to greatly reduce costs. But if we're trying to determine the market for a carplane, you have to assume the owners will be the same as most GA aircraft owners, and end up paying "normal" costs.

Exclusive of my hangar costs, my Fly Baby is about as cheap as they come, for ownership expenses. But I'm thinking I won't be able to afford it when I retire.

Ron Wanttaja

[Nick Whiley]

I think we're getting closer to the real scenario Ron. My only disagreement with you is with your top three reasons. The money motive is not an absolute; it's ALWAYS balanced against benefit. A pilot who flies 50 hours a year spends money to do so. If he/she chooses to rent an aircraft at a flying school, it's because he/she perceives the flying school to offer the best overall package, in terms of cost/benefit. If we want to really understand the factors which would cause a 50 hours a year pilot to purchase a car-plane, we'd need to break it down to an hourly rate for the flying he/she does. Then we'd need to add opportunity to that equation (would a car-plane allow me to do flying that might not be possible/practical if I hired a flying school plane?).

I live in Australia, and here we don't have interstates all over the place like you do. In the remote outback (mostly desert) light aircraft represent a cheaper and more comfortable mode of transportation, because travel "as the crow flies" cuts substantial distance out of the journey. But in the USA you may well be right. I guess time will tell, since the first car-planes will be on the market there quite soon from all reports. It will be very interesting to watch.

[VTOL Qwerty]

One of the reasons that I am intrigued by VTOL is the ability to go "other places" that perhaps I wouldn't go, either by car or plane. Let's face it; you probably aren't going to take your car plane 4-wheeling. So it is only a means to highway accessible locations.

VTOL on the other hand opens the door to all kinds of destinations. And if it is amphibious VTOL, then the gamut is even wider. I have wanted to camp on a variety of islands in various lakes and reservoirs, but haven't ever done so. I like planes, but as mentioned above, ultimately it is the door-to-door time that makes the final difference. Amphibious VTOL makes "the door" nearly anywhere.

As for driving vs. "as the crow flies," the Helodyne site (www.Helodyne.com (http://www.helodyne.com/)) has a nice comparison to table that shows the difference in driving two distances and flying. Unfortunately, the speed is set for that aircraft, but you can get an idea from the site. It is the Driving vs. Flying (http://www.helodyne.com/Helodyne-vs-Driving.html) page. I think it is based on google maps, so it should work even for Australia.

[Nick Whiley]

The problem with VTOL is operational costs. The amphibious idea delivers a level of versatility without the additional cost; certainly it would provide you with access to many of those remote lakes and reservoirs you mentioned in your comment. I understand Carplane's high wing design and the location of the power plant allows for both VTOL and amphibious versions; although I imagine the amphibious version would be a simpler conversion.

[Eric Page]

...to be successful the "roadable aircraft" must also be a boat.


Not just a boat, but a SAILboat.


And if it is amphibious VTOL

Once all those requirements are met, and the FAA issues weight exemptions for each, you'll need a type rating to fly it!

[VTOL Qwerty]

Certainly, for certified VTOL aircraft, essentially helicopters, yes, both the initial cost and the operational cost is substantial. However, we are on the EAA Forum, so let's assume Experimental. I don't know the exact costs, unfortunately, I don't own a Rotorway A600 Talon, but I bet the operational costs for it are very inline with any other experimental aircraft. Perhaps slightly higher due to lower fuel efficency and some more maintence. But with VTOL, hopefully, you'll actually get to fly more, the the amortization of the fixed costs, should be spread over many more hours. I read somewhere that most pilots do not even break 100 hours / year.

Perhaps there is an A600 owner that can respond to this?

And yes, all FAA requirements must be met, by both the aircraft and the pilot.

[Switchblade Man]

Sure! The wind tunnel testing at U of Washington was completed in April and came out even better than expected. A new tail design exceeded stability targets and cut drag about 7%. All in all, looks like this baby will fly great! And drive great and look cool too! About time a practical "flying car" came along.

[Switchblade Man]

Anyone have any thoughts, criticisms, or words of encouragement around the switchblade? http://www.samsonmotorworks.com/

Wing loading for he Switchblade will be about 26 lbs. The body pretty big and roomy. Makes the wings look deceptively small, but wingspan is actually 26 feet

[flybuddy]

Wing loading for he Switchblade will be about 26 lbs. The body pretty big and roomy. Makes the wings look deceptively small, but wingspan is actually 26 feet

It's a beauty but it seems to be in endless development along the lines of Terrafuga, Elio and string theory.

[MEdwards]

..... seems to be in endless development along the lines of Terrafuga, Elio and string theory.Or fusion power.